Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the cascade behavior to descendants, irreversibility, and the exact return value (deleted title and children_deleted count). This gives an agent a full picture of the action's effects without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with no filler: the destructive scope is front-loaded, alternatives and usage policy are stated next, and the return value appears last. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter delete tool, the description is complete: it covers scope, effects, when to use alternatives, and the return value despite the absence of an output schema. No critical detail for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, goalId, is already described as a UUID in the schema. The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning, but it implies the goal's identity is the target of deletion. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'IRREVERSIBLY delete a goal and all its descendants,' listing exactly what is removed (children, evidence, blockers). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming goal-update and goal-block as alternatives, so an agent can immediately tell this apart from related operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: prefer goal-update status=cancelled for preserving history, use goal-block to mark obstacles, and use delete only for erroneous or duplicate entries. This is unusually clear routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.